JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar, J :- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated th December, 1988 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau in Partition Appeal No. 14 of 1985 whereby he set aside the judgment and decree passed by Munsif, Daltonganj dated 24.11.1984 in Title Suit No. 20 of 1976 and decreed the partition suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. The case of plaintiff in brief is that the suit property described in Schedule-A of the plaint is joint property of plaintiff and his brother Dhanush Thakur ( father of defendant nos. 1 to 3 and Late Ragho Thakur, whose heirs are defendant nos. 4 to 10). It is also stated that plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the aforesaid suit property. Further case of the plaintiff is that after the death of his father, he shifted to Daltonganj and opened a hair cutting saloon. It is then stated that from the income of hair cutting saloon, he purchased a house at Daltonganj and also purchased lands pertaining to Khata Nos. 1 and 2 at village Nawatanr and constructed a house over it. It is stated that the house at Daltonganj and aforesaid lands and house at village Nawatanr are self acquired property of the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff and defendants were jointly enjoying the usufructs of suit property. However, some dispute arose between both the parties for which a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. and 145 Cr.P.C. initiated. It is stated that said proceeding disposed of on the basis of compromise. It is further stated that when plaintiff insisted for partition of Schedule -A property as per the terms , compromise, defendants refused, hence present suit filed. 3. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement they admitted that the properties mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint are joint family property. However they states that the house at Daltonganj as well as lands pertaining to Khata No. 1 and 2 of village Nawatanr are also joint family properties, as same are purchased from the joint family fund. The further case of the defendants is that plaintiff opened hair cutting saloon at Daltonganj in the year 1947 with the help of defendants. However they states that the house at Daltonganj as well as lands pertaining to Khata No. 1 and 2 of village Nawatanr are also joint family properties, as same are purchased from the joint family fund. The further case of the defendants is that plaintiff opened hair cutting saloon at Daltonganj in the year 1947 with the help of defendants. It is further stated that in the year 1939, mother-in-law of plaintiff wishes to transfer her house at Daltonganj in favour of wives of plaintiff and his brother Dhanush Thakur by executing a deed of gift, as both are her daughters. It is then alleged that plaintiff by doing fraud instead of executing a deed of gift, get a sale deed executed in favour of his son, showing that he paid consideration amount of Rs. 800/-. It is stated that in the year 1939, plaintiff had no income to purchase aforesaid house. Defendants claimed that the said house is also a joint family property. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of partial partition, because plaintiff had not included aforesaid properties in Schedule A to the plaint. 4.On the basis of pleading of the parties learned trial court framed altogether six issues. Thereafter both the parties adduced evidences in support of their case. It then appear that the learned Munsif ( trial court) decided all the issues in favour of defendants and dismissed the suit on contest. Thereafter an appeal filed and in the said appeal, the learned appellate court after considering the evidences adduced by both the parties, had set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif ( trial court) and decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff is entitled to half share over the entire suit property. Against the said judgment of appellate court, this appeal has been filed. 5. It appears that the present appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the court below before allowing the appeal should have recorded a finding that if the saloon business was a joint family business and if it was so, there was sufficient income out of which property was acquired in the name of the plaintiff and his two minor sons?” 6. It is submitted by Sri V.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellate court has not given any finding as to when the saloon was opened. It is further submitted that the learned appellate court had not given any finding that the saloon in question was not a joint family business, thus, any property purchased from the income of said business are joint family property. Therefore defendants/appellants are entitled to get share in the said property. It is further submitted that the plaintiff/ respondents had no income in the year 1939 , thus it will be presumed that the said property was purchased from joint family fund. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 7. On the other hand, Sri Manjul Prasad, submits that the learned appellate court below had given a definite finding that there is no income from ancestral property , thus, there is no joint family nucleus out of which joint family could have purchased any property. Sri Prasad further submits that the learned appellate court below , after considering the evidence available on record, had given a finding that the Saloon in question had not opened jointly by the plaintiff and defendants. Learned appellate court also held that defendants did not work in the said Saloon. He submits that the learned appellate court had rejected the only evidence of defendants in this regard i.e. of defendant no. 1 ( D.W. No. 19), and held that the same is vague and cryptic. It is submitted that the aforesaid finding given by learned appellate court is a finding of fact which cannot be challenged in the Second Appeal. It is submitted that there are evidences available on the record to show that the plaintiff opened Saloon prior to the year 1939 and he purchased the house at Daltonganj from the income of the said Saloon. 8. The learned appellate court at paragraph no. 29 of its judgment gave following findings:- “Admittedly, the only ancestral property was residential house situated on S.P. No. 143 and a bari measuring 0.32 acres in S.P. No. 144, both apertaining to Khata No. 9 and situate at Village Nawatanr. But there is absolutely no evidence that these ancestral properties yielded any income to the joint family. There is absolutely no evidence to show that there was any income generated out of this ancestral property. But there is absolutely no evidence that these ancestral properties yielded any income to the joint family. There is absolutely no evidence to show that there was any income generated out of this ancestral property. In other words, it is held that there was absolutely no nucleus out of which the joint family could have purchased any property out of the saving from the income of the ancestral property. “ Thus, the appellate court after considering the evidence available on record had given a definite finding that there is no joint family nucleus out of which joint family could have purchased any property. The learned appellate court then at paragraph no. 30 had stated that since the said properties details of which given in Schedule A to the written statement, are in the name of plaintiff, thus the burden is upon the defendant to prove that they also contributed in acquisition of said property. Learned appellate court below considered the evidence of D.W. 19 and held that evidence laid by the defendants to prove their claim that hair cutting saloon was opened jointly by plaintiff and defendants is vague and cryptic and therefore, did not inspire confidence. 9. Thus, from perusal of paragraph no. 29 and 30 of the judgment of learned appellate court below, I find that the learned appellate court decided that the saloon in question is not a joint family business. 10. I also perused the evidence available on record. P.W. 5, Ramdeo Thakur stated that he is Sarhu ( husband of sister-in-law) of plaintiff and Dhanush Thakur ( father of defendants). Thus, he is a close relative of both the parties. Defendants while cross examining him did not give any suggestion to show that he has any personal grudge to depose against them. This witness stated that Nagwant Thakur ( plaintiff) had started business of Saloon prior to purchase of house at Daltonganj. It is an admitted case of both the parties that house at Daltonganj was acquired in the year 1939. Thus, as per evidence of P.W. 5, Saloon in question was opened prior to 1939. He further deposed that initially saloon was opened in a hut. The case of the plaintiff finds full support from the evidence of P.W. 5 that Saloon was opened prior to purchase of house at Daltonganj I.e. before 1939. Thus, as per evidence of P.W. 5, Saloon in question was opened prior to 1939. He further deposed that initially saloon was opened in a hut. The case of the plaintiff finds full support from the evidence of P.W. 5 that Saloon was opened prior to purchase of house at Daltonganj I.e. before 1939. P.W. 5 further states that plaintiff purchased the house at Daltonanj from his mother-in-law. He further deposed that Dhanush Thakur had not contributeed a single penny in purchase of aforesaid house. During the cross examination at paragraph no. 5, this witness stated that the negotiation for sale of house at Daltonganj took place in his presence between Nagwant Thakur and his mother-in-law. This witness, who is a Sarhu of plaintiff, had no where stated that his mother-in-law wished to transfer said house by executing a gift deed in favour of plaintiff and his brother Dhanush Thakur. Under the said circumstances, I find that apart from plaintiff P.W. 11, P.W. 5 also supported the case of plaintiff. 11. On the other hand, on behalf of defendant only D.W. 19 i.e defendant no. 1 had deposed in support of their case. No independent witness produced to show that the saloon in question at Daltonganj was opened in the year 1947. D.W. 19 stated that it is not the fact that plaintiff was running a saloon separately prior to 1947. He then states that the saloon was joint and the same was jointly run by defendants and plaintiff. He did not state when said saloon was opened. He also not stated that defendants also contributed in opening of said saloon. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the learned appellate court rightly concluded that the evidence of defendant with regard to opening of saloon with joint effort of both the parties, is vague, cryptic and thus do not inspire confidence. 12. As stated above, no other evidence adduced by defendants to show that the Saloon at Daltonganj was opened in the year 1947 with the joint efforts of plaintiff and defendants. Under the said circumstance, it is held that defendants ( appellants) failed to prove that the business of Saloon is a joint family business. Accordingly it is held that it is a separate business of plaintiff. 13. D.W. 19 at paragraph no. Under the said circumstance, it is held that defendants ( appellants) failed to prove that the business of Saloon is a joint family business. Accordingly it is held that it is a separate business of plaintiff. 13. D.W. 19 at paragraph no. 5 of his deposition had specifically stated that the land at Nawatanr was purchased from the income of Saloon business. Thus, it is admitted by the defendants that income from the said saloon was sufficient for purchasing of properties in question. 14. In view of the discussion made above, I conclude that the saloon business at Daltonganj was started prior to 1939 by the plaintiff himself and income from the said saloon is sufficient for purchasing the properties in question. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly, dismissed.